Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Ah yes, let’s go back to the days of Thalidomide.

For those that don’t know, the 1962 change is the Kefauver–Harris Amendment, which was a response to one of, if not the, largest overall global crisis of conscience in the medical field. From Wikipedia: “When first released, thalidomide was promoted for anxiety, trouble sleeping, "tension", and morning sickness.” After some time it became increasing obvious that while it worked, it caused birth defects in pregnant or soon to be pregnant women, with its manufacturers actively trying to quash the information about such cases; again, from Wikipedia: “Use of thalidomide in pregnancy can cause fetal abnormalities such as phocomelia (malformation of the limbs). In males who are taking the medication, contraception is essential if a partner could become pregnant.”

Thalidomide disfigurements were disturbing. Children born with these disfigurements were not linked to Thalidomide until much later. Thalidomide was in fact not allowed a safety regulation by the FDA initially. It wasn’t until the company producing it, Grünenthal, pressured the FDA. You see, the FDA reviewer for the medication was leery about it after some reports had floated over her desk about a possible remote risk that this could potentially cause birth defects. Grünenthal’s international licensee to the US refused to explain multiple papers that linked Thalidomide usage in pregnant women to birth defects.

As it turns out, not only had Grünenthal known about the issue they had actively worked to silence the information, a ploy that worked until a major change in leadership in Germany.

It was denied usage in East Germany.

For a longer documentary on the subject and how it changed medical safety testing, Plainly Difficult has a very good video on it: https://youtu.be/Vi03zz6eCik

(Note: I am explicitly ignoring the context that the Thalidomide development program was run by an actual Nazi who was responsible for unethical and frankly awful experience on unwilling human subjects in concentration camps. If anything, it only amplifies his concern to hide adverse effects, which he did quite successfully until the company was given what can only be considered “A slap in the face”.)



None of that has anything to do with the proposal you're replying to, which is about the efficacy requirement, not safety.


Everything you said has absolutely nothing to do with what GP said.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: